Happy Body, Mind, and Soul for 2014

I have to admit, I’ve been stumped for what I was going to write as my first piece for 2014.  I know I went pretty quiet for a while; 2013 had some sharper turns and deeper, darker valleys than expected.  But as long as you keeping walking on life’s path you always find that it goes back up in to the light, and so here I am wanting to shine a little bit of my own light back on the world.

I was talking about this with my two older boys late last night.  I was reminded that it was time to write another blog and I said I was stumped for a topic.  Then I was reminded that I had been banging on about how they should try yoga because it was good for your body, mind and soul; so why not write about that?  I’m not sure if that was help, or a shutdown.  But I’m up for the challenge; so here we go…

Actually, talking about body and mind is easy these days.  The body obsession just seems to grow bigger every year.  I’m not too sure how many personal trainers, tattoo artists, and protein shakes the world needs, but I think it’s safe to say that as a society we are  happy to pay attention to bodies.  And of course these days there’s an app for everything body related, and we are increasingly connecting our bodies to our devices.

It would seem to me that obsession about the mind is also starting to grow.  You can sign up for brain training websites and try and grow brain cells in the morning so that you can go out a drink them away in the evening.  Old people are trying to stave off brain degeneration, and tertiary education is now a pre-requisite for almost everything, including personal training, tattoo artists, and protein shake makers.  We celebrate smart minds like we celebrate sports people and their bodies.  And yes, there are apps for our brains too that allow us to maybe grow and perhaps augment our minds.  Yep, we are happy to pay attention to our minds.

But talking about the soul is not so easy; the soul is the realm of religion, or hippie speak, or bad cable TV shows.  You can talk endlessly about bodies at the pub, you can talk about minds at the pub (but only for so long before us guys get distracted by beer and go back to bodies), but you can’t really talk about souls at the pub.  And besides; what is a soul?  It’s hard enough to work out what it is let alone pay attention to it and look after it.

But here’s the light I’d like to shine for 2014.  Maybe we need to question the way we think about bodies and minds, and we need to bring our souls/spirits/conscious self in to the mix and balance things up.  Paying attention to something is not necessarily nurturing something.  Taking strange compounds, competing endlessly, obsessing over apps to measure and monitor everything, and generally creating pressure on ourselves to maximize body and mind performance to the extreme is not my idea of nurturing.  Increasingly it’s looking like obsessing to me.  And we need to stop forgetting about our souls.

To me, body, mind and soul have become very apparent.  I am not a religious person and so to me the soul is our conscious self; our higher consciousness if you like.  If you want to observe this with your body and mind then try and do a really difficult yoga pose.  Every yoga pose is difficult for me – I have the flexibility and grace of a log.  But I try.  And when I tried I learnt pretty quick that there are three things all going on at the same time. Your body is screaming at you saying “FAAAAARK, why are you doing this to me”, your mind is screaming at you “FAAAAARK, why are you here when you could be at the pub you FAAAAARKING idiot”, and your conscious self is there going “I seem to swear a lot.  Why don’t you all calm down, and keep quiet and be”.  It’s as clear as day to me – there are 3 things going on and the more I do it the more I learn to listen to the calm voice.  But we don’t naturally listen to the calm voice, and we don’t talk about it, and we don’t have an app for it.  But I like to think of my higher conscious, calm self as my soul.  And I think it needs nurturing.

So I want to work on my balance in 2014 and I would encourage you all to think about doing the same.  Body, Mind, and Soul.  If nothing else, thinking about balance can’t be a bad thing.

Happy New Year!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do we push?

Do we push the world and create a hole for our success, or do we fall in to our success?  Are our choices relevant?

The popular western narrative is that we can create our own success with a positive attitude; but is that true?  Or is it just a population effect where there are enough trying that randomly succeed and validate our cultural bias to believe that pushing matters?

I don’t know.  I guess the answer is that if you do nothing, nothing happens.  So at least trying puts you at the head of the queue.  I suppose that will do for starters.

But I like to think that I can think up an idea and push it to reality.  But is that true?  Can I?  Have I?

But I am not sure the question is worth asking.  Just push.  But maybe push smarter.

I guess that means I believe we do push for our own success.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cautionary Tales of Restrictive US Internet Policies

Can you believe that it is 20 years this year since the release of the Mosaic Internet Browser in 1993?  I remember 1993 very well; it was the year our first child was born and I moved from working in research to the finance industry.  The two events were highly related as there is nothing that gets you more focused on the financial practicalities of life than the arrival of a pooing and gooing bundle of future potential that is dependent on you to realise their potential.  So when I was invited to join a US investment bank to research the application of new technology in their business, and even though I didn’t really know what that meant, I jumped.

The original project was a flop but I landed on my feet pretty solidly when in 1994, after the release of the Netscape browser, my knowledge of the internet from being a hacker and having access to internet systems at the university meant I was able to come out of the blocks at full speed to start work on the transition from internal, disconnected financial systems to the unbelievably connected world of finance that we live in today.

But while I was able to come out of the blocks at full speed, Australian eCommerce could not.  We take our strongly encrypted SSL (secure socket layer) links to our banks and other online providers for granted, but in 1994 the technology that enabled strong SSL encryption was locked up in the US and unavailable outside of the US.  The reason for this was that the US government was absolutely paranoid about the use of encryption by their “enemies”.  In fact they controlled encryption technology by classifying it as a “munition” which meant that its export was regulated and subject to arms traffic controls.

They were also ruthless in pursuing anyone who disagreed with this point of view; in particular those involved in the cypherpunk movement.  This was basically a group of hippie technologists who saw encryption as being a tool for social change by increasing the freedom of the individual by keeping away the prying eyes of the state.  Both sides of the debate was comical except for its seriousness – hippies creating T-shirts with math formulas printed on them to make a point that no one could understand, and government officials arresting them for breaching export controls for publishing on T-shirts the algorithms that were deemed to be munitions.

And so when I started in finance in an American investment bank, the bank I worked for was actually a registered arms dealer for the purposes of exporting the encryption technology that it needed in order to communicate from Sydney Australia, back to the head office.  And as part of the Federal audit that occurred every two years in Sydney, some strange people that looked like Mr Smith from the Matrix would also audit our compliance with munitions export controls.

So when the internet started to take off in 1994, the world outside the US found itself in a bit of a bind.  You see the American government used its powers to restrict Netscape Corporation, and soon after, Microsoft Corporation, from exporting versions of their browsers that had production strength SSL keys in them.  That meant that in the US a normal citizen, good or bad, could get access to 128bit encryption, while outside the US anyone else, including good Australian citizens could only have 40Bit keys; a key strength that the US government, or your local bank thief, could comfortable crack should they feel the need to do so.  This ban also went to web server software and the encryption libraries in programming environments such as the Java programming language released in 1995.

This went on until 1996 when Bill Clinton signed an executive order allowing 128bit keys to be used, however the NSA continued to fight against it and even tried to make the use of an encryption chip called “Clipper” mandatory so that the US government could intercept foreign communications.  Those efforts failed, but the delays meant that we could not start full scale eCommerce projects in Australia for over 2 years from when we could have started them, and it meant that we were at a competitive disadvantage to US companies.

But these shenanigans by the zealots of the US intelligence communities not only disadvantaged non US companies; they were in serious danger of putting US companies at serious risk of losing their place in the new race.  The US does not have the monopoly on knowledgeable, smart, and motivated technologists, and so people started to solve the problem for themselves.  In fact during the period of restrictions on the use of SSL outside of the US, an enterprising pair of Australians called Eric Young and Tim Hudson created an SSL library called SSLeay which became the defacto global standard implementation of the SSL protocol to the point where it is also now used as a default around the world in the OpenSSL package (every Mac has it).  The rather strangely named “legion of the bouncy castle” is also a website domiciled in Australia that hosts the development of the benchmark SSL library for the Java environment.  What was starting to happen was that the open source movement and smart people outside the US were working their way around restrictive US policies, and I have no doubt that had the restrictions continued both Netscape and Microsoft would have been toppled by a foreign developed web browser.

Now wind forward 20 years, and this weekend we are hearing of cloud based web email services from LavaBit and Silent Circle closing their doors because (and it is illegal for them to give any specific detail) they would rather close their doors than allow US intelligence agencies to demand access to their networks and databases.  We also know that while Google and Microsoft were willing participants in the NSA data collection processes revealed by the whistle blower Edward Snowden, the NSA was able to coerce Yahoo and Apple against their will to do the same.

I hope someone with some ounce of wisdom is thinking about this in the US government.  The drums are banging, the technologists are activating, and the cypherpunks are printing new t-shirts.  History tells us that if you keep going you are going to find that those outside the US actually have the smarts and economic power to hit you where it hurts – in your tech industry. Things will slow down, tempers will go up, industry will get hurt, not a lot will be achieved, and you’ll have to change because if there is one thing America likes more than chasing boogie men, it is its industries making money and it’s people in jobs.

We don’t have to go through this lesson again, do we? It’s only been 20 years since the last time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Collateral Damage

What has happened to our country?  Our politicians have created a plan that condemns human beings to living in tents in a foreign country without basic rights and protections, and they call it a success.  And based on what you read in opinion polls, we call our politicians successful.

Oh that’s right; they are asylum seekers.  The magic name that once applied immediately classifies another human as being a different class of human to which human rights no longer apply.

But, I hear you say, they are queue jumpers and they are breaching our borders.  And they are not political refugees, they are economic refugees.  And they are muslim.  And so we go to our churches, and celebrate freely at our Greek and Italian and Indonesian and Vietnamese and Eastern European community centres, and eat our mutli-cultural food and rest easy knowing that some men women and children who dared to dream and risk all, right way or wrong way, to come to our country for a new start, are dispatched to live in a tent in Papua New Guinea.

Really, Australia?  How did that happen?  Can we not even look at our own personal experiences in a great multicultural country and see how wrong this is?  Let me look in to my own life and see what I can see.  I can see so many things.  I see in my own family that I have friends from so many parts of the world, and just recently I sat at dinner with friends who were refugees from Lebanon and Egypt.

I see the flood of Vietnamese boat people that occurred when I was at high school.  Back then our Prime Minister argued that we should be compassionate and let the boat people in (many of them came as “economic refugees”), and my school took a fair share of them as students.  I grew up in a country town, not the most cosmopolitan part of the country, and we coped and in fact became friends with them, learnt from them, and the country benefited from them being here.

I see all the Hong Kong Chinese who immigrated while I was in my early career in finance because they wanted to get out of Hong Kong before it reverted to Chinese control.   At that time the immigration queues were full of wealthy queue jumpers who used their economic power to jump the queue, but we survived and they thrived.

But probably most sobering of all, is I see my grandfather speaking with hatred for the cruel  Japanese who had kept Australian’s in tents in New Guinea.  It is still such a trial that we send troubled teenagers escorted by humbled politicians, all dosed with malaria tablets and months of training, to walk the Kokoda Trail to memorialize how we should never forget how horrible it was for our ANZAC warriors in New Guinea.  And these same politicians sleep rough in fund raisers so that Australian’s don’t have to sleep outside in the elements.

But now we send men, women, and children to hastily constructed tent cities (1200 already) to unsettled parts of New Guinea as a deterrent to the boat smugglers who according to some recentl statistics that I read, do not manage to bring as many people in to Australia as the number of those who turn up on tourist visas and do not leave.

Serves them right, we say.  They made the choice to jump the queue, and the kids are just collateral damage to their parents bad decisions.

Really?  Is that the Australian way?  I doubt it.  But radicalized children dripping hatred for heartless Australians isn’t the only collateral damage I see here.  I see our national soul being collateral damage as well.

I am raising my voice; please raise yours.  If the internet really is the social media revolution that people say it is, then please add your tweets and posts so that our media manipulating leaders start to get the message.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Internet is a Red Herring in the Fight for Democracy

When people come together and form organisations with a common purpose, leaders emerge, goals are defined, plans made, and work delegated.  Once underway the managers emerge to maintain focus, solve problems, and defend against the undoing of work and purpose.  Organisations also develop a life-like quality in that they first seek to defend their lives, and then seek to thrive.  So once you have an organisation in existence the leaders and managers who have the power of the organisation automatically shift their focus to sustaining and growing the organisation.

While we all see organisations at work and may work in them, the fact that the leadership and high level management of these groups only requires a select few means that it is unlikely that many of us in a modern society will truly participate and see how power works.  So the challenge of organisational power is how do you control it when power is experienced and hence understood by a few, held at any point in time by an even smaller few, and the larger group has little understanding or engagement in the management of the power of the organisations that impact their lives?

Nations are simply organisations; groups of people operating as an organisation within the boundaries of their nation.  As with other organisations, not all nations share the same values, however democratic nations believe that the individual is free to live their life free from the control of the state.  However as power in organisations is concentrated, and its machinations a mystery, democratic nations have to solve the problem of how to manage the few in power who will not always get it right and tend to err outside their mandate as they seek to thrive within their purpose.

Democracies achieve this control by ensuring that those in power live within open – or transparent – review processes.  In a democracy all review processes should ultimately link to a transparent legal and legislative process.  Transparency is the tool that democracies use to ensure that the rights of the individual are not taken by the decisions of the powerful few.

An uncomfortable aspect of transparency is that it is adversarial in nature – a fight.  If someone wants to do something and someone in a position of review argues against it, two adversaries are joined.  It follows therefore that effective democracy is about effective fighting.  That is borne out in the language we use; we go to the courts to fight, lobbyists fight, our lawmakers fight, the executive branch fights with the legislative branch, we fight campaigns, we fight, fight, fight.  So if we are in a democracy we are joined in a fight, and if we walk away from fighting, we walk away from democracy.

To me it seems inevitable that those in power will lose their perspective and end up working against the freedoms of the individual.  Consider someone in a critically important management role in a government security organisation.  They are important people, well educated, well meaning, driven, and with a detailed understanding of the workings of their organisation and the challenges that they face.  People in these roles see things that we can never understand, probably things that we can never even contemplate. Who knows the horrors, real or imagined, that go across these people’s desks every day as they understand the world in which they work, and make their plans.  And just like us they will create management plans, have off-sites, team meetings, dream about what can be done, struggle to do what should be done, fixing up the things that should not have been done.  Just another day at the office except that a normal day deals with things like national security policy.  So how can these people have a normal view of anything and keep a balanced perspective?  They can’t always and so they need processes of review to help them keep their perspective.

But if the process of review is a fight, they are going to fight against that review.  Every now and then they will win fights they should not win, and sometimes circumstances gives them a free win.  Given enough of these wins the review process gets weakened to the point of being ineffective.  I believe that this is what we are seeing as the NSA files are slowly being leaked.  We are seeing how we have been through a period where those in power who have lost their perspective have been able to operate without a fight.  And with no fight joined the review processes have been weakened to the point where they have no fight left in them.  And so our democracy has been weakened.

The bitter irony in all of this is that the terrorists who try to undermine our freedoms through terror can actually succeed in undermining our freedoms by our responses invoked by that terror.  We are free, we get attacked, we give up our freedoms so that we don’t get attacked.  The result is that we are less free because of terrorism.

This can be seen in government involvement in the monitoring of the public internet. The democratic governments who have been revealed to be building this monitoring infrastructure argue that they are doing it for the defense of the democracy.  But what is the difference between a democratic nation that controls communications networks, corporation’s use of customer information, information flows between and from citizens, and an autocratic one that does the same?  None, except that the democratic government was supposed to do this work transparently inside the law.  But if there was transparency about the plan before it went to execution would they have even won the fight to implement them? Probably not.

So while the erosion of our freedoms may have manifested themselves in errant government practices around internet communications networks and the corporations offering services over this network, the problem is not the emergence of a new technology called the internet.  The problem is an erosion of the old processes of transparency and our willingness to join the fight to ensure transparency.

The internet is a red herring in our fight for democracy.  If we fight for transparency, and fight for our democracy, what happens on connections over the internet will look after themselves.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Solitary Whistleblower

From the moment Edward Snowden hit the front page with his PRISM revelations, I have been waiting for his version of the unmatched socks, smelly vagabond, all round douche bag article that was written about Julian Assange.  I did not have  to wait long for the Edward Snowden version as it appears that David Brooks, op-ed columnist for the New York Times signed up for the task and wrote “The Solitary Leaker”.  I first saw the piece syndicated in the Sydney Morning Herald, and even though I have read his pieces in the past, I could not read past the first paragraph.  But it was referred to me by friends and referenced in so many thought pieces that I had to have a proper read.

For those who don’t know, David Brooks is a conservative cynic who normally ventures  out in to the grubby world wearing a liberal cloak to keep the mud away from his pure, clean, conservative credentials.  He’s very erudite, educated, and often a thought provoking read, but at the end of the day he’s the social observer who is like an under cover cop at a dance party – you can pick him out a mile away because he thinks he fits in but everyone knows who he is and what he stands for.

He leaves no doubt as to what he stands for in “The Solitary Leaker”; the piece is written as an eruption of vituperative establishment fury.  It’s quite an amazing work really.  It’s an unmediated effusion of bitter bile from a very erudite and normally quite mediated person.  Any writer will tell you that the only way you could write an article like that was “in a moment”, and at the moment he penned that article he was clearly popping, and he very nearly popped an aneurism.  You can feel it in the pace and timbre of the piece.  He starts cold, gets annoyed, then gets white hot with pulpit thumping denunciations of why this sinner should be excommunicated from the church of civil society.  To David Brooks, Edward Snowden has become the personification of the devil that he has seen degrading civilized society.

But what amazes me most about this article is its hypocrisy.  “For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures.” says David Brooks.  But what Edward Snowden is in fact exposing is the very fact that these very qualities – trust, co-operation, respect for the institutions of law making and the deference to the common procedures of oversight of unelected public servants by elected officials – have been totally abandoned.  Can’t David Brooks concede for even a small moment that the reason why this story has gone so hard and so strong across the whole planet is precisely because it has caused an unleashing of the desire for a return to the very values that he wants to see?

No, he can’t see that as he is too angry, apoplectic, enraged.  We know he is because he reverts to name calling.  Julian Assange could not match his socks or have a shower, and Edward Snowden could not finish school or get a degree.  But in his act of name calling, David Brooks exposes the weakness of his position and the problem that is faced by the political establishment who are trying to defend the unconscionable acts of power drunk unelected public servants who are trying to avoid the scrutiny of the elected representatives who pay them, and hence who they serve.

The underlying essence of David Brooks’ argument is that a well educated person is “mediated” through their education experience, and therefore we should only have educated, and hence “mediated” people, in positions of national importance and security.  Of course in America, where a good education costs something with 6 digits in the total, what David Brooks is immediately implying is that we should ensure that only the elites should have access to these positions.  Or, if someone from the wrong side of the tracks gets a scholarship and works their way up in to a position of authority, we can rely on the education process to “mediate” the person’s thinking so that they make good decisions in favor of the  existing establishment.

But what David Brooks does not understand, and Edward Snowden’s hiring panel clearly did understand, is that the sort of person who understands how to subvert a computer system, and the sort of person who can subvert the enemy who is trying to subvert your computer system, is not the sort of person who sits nicely in MBA classes at Harvard or MIT, gets mediated, and then rolls up their sleeves to do their duty.  The sort of person who does this work is not normal, mediated, or stupid.  In fact you can surmise how special Edward Snowden is by the sheer fact that he got hired in to his positions when all the people in those positions are mostly establishment careerists.  The problem the establishment position has is that the people who are actually able to do these tasks are actually smart enough to see that what is being done is wrong and inconsistent with the values of our modern democracies.  The problem is compounded when a smart person of strong moral fiber sees what is wrong and is also able to see their way to doing something about it.

David Brooks has written his rant and made his case, and I don’t expect him to change his mediated mind.  However while David Brooks is well known and syndicated from the New York Times, that does not mean that we should let his and other mediated New York Times opinion pieces besmirch Edward Snowden’s name and his contribution to a free and open society.  It’s too early to tell if it’s net good or net bad; but it sure looks interesting enough for me to want to reserve my judgement and wait and see, and to encourage others to do likewise.  And so I raise my small voice to support Edward Snowden for his unmediated revelations.

It must be hard to be The Solitary Whistleblower.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The PRISM Prison

My work and research is about developing systems that enable complex analytics for asset owners.  Not the asset managers who would like you to think that they are the center of the investment universe, but the asset owners who have a need to appoint, monitor and fire asset managers because they control funds of money with balances that are out of this universe.  Many of these are government bodies such as state pension funds that have really serious people in really serious jobs that need to have specialists around them to provide rigorous and theoretically based processes to manage seriously large sums of money.  My work is to research, design and build the systems that implement these processes.

It goes without saying that I am security conscious.  Many people trivialize the threats and laugh at the paranoia that comes with the territory of managing large, distributed systems that are managing large sums of distributed wealth. But as I like to say to people who think I’m a bit edgy – come and sit with me and review my daily system security log and I will show you the attacks that occur every second of every day from automated and sophisticated attackers from many and varied “states” (also known as countries).  I have yet to see someone get up and leave that hasn’t had his or her perspective changed.  It is a serious world of threats out there and you need to be proactive and on your game.  You cannot afford to lose.

But my job is like that of a bank security guard – it is my job to know my threats, know the attack vectors, plan for what is known, keep up to date with what becomes known, and be armed with a risk management plan for those moments when you experience the unknown.  But in the same way that a bank security guard does not have the right to go out and extend their security management plan to include citizens going about their business who may become a threat to the bank, I do not have the right to go on the attack against internet citizens who may become a threat to my systems.  There are laws against that sort of thing.

However some time after Sept 11 2001 governments got punch drunk and decided that the best way to respond to the terrorist threat was to assume everyone was a terrorist and get proactive with everyone.  You, me, everyone was deemed a potential threat that had to be managed in advance of the threat.  And due to the serendipity of the growth of the Internet and concentration of power in the hands of a few US multi national monopolies, it could actually be done rather than just be dreamt about.  And due to these wonderful arrangements such as ECHELON left over from the cold war there were even cross border agreements with allies that allowed annoying laws like “thou shalt not have unrestricted surveillance of thy citizens” to be overcome by handing data around a chain of allies so that each surveyed the other’s citizens and reported back to each other without having broken the law.  Let’s not let the trifling issues of freedom and liberty that paranoid civil libertarians talk about get in the way of the business of fighting terrorism.

But if we are to learn anything from history it is that the eternal problem with government is that unless it is inherently restricted, it takes the power of the people and turns it back on them to create a form of gangsterism to serve its own purpose rather than the purpose of the collective good.  Do we need to justify that statement by living through another period of oppression, or can we agree that there is ample evidence that this is just what happens with unfettered power in the hands of the few?  It’s up to you to decide what you believe, but I believe in the lessons of history.

And so we find ourselves in the situation that just a week ago anyone who proposed anything as impossible as the US government demanding, storing, and processing all the internet traffic going through the US would have been deemed to have been living on planet paranoid, and this week anyone not knowing that would have been deemed to have been living on a desert island and not read a newspaper (or the Guardian Newspaper in the UK to be precise).  We now know that we have in fact all been herded in to the PRISM information prison.  If you have been on that island, it is now known that pretty much every piece of information going through the large corporate web portals is being tracked and stored and indexed – and used.  That includes your life – yes yours.  This great summary is from a friend of mine: http://unvexed.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-prism-may-be-and-means.html

And worse, if you are not a US citizen, which includes many of my Australian family and friends reading this, your data is outside your control in a jurisdiction within which you have no representation.  That means that Australians can go outside of Australia to assess information on other Australians – outside Australian law.  That’s nice as long as everyone plays nice, but that does not happen and it’s the exception that makes the rule.  And I don’t know about you but I’m not that confident in our system of government that it won’t throw up a bunch of incompetent clowns every now and then (which depending on your perspective, may mean the circus is in town right now).  So while I trust that the democratic system is robust enough to finally get clowns out, I’m not going to trust my data to a system run by an administration that lets Chinese hackers steal the plans to the new national security building.

So we should all care.  But the question is what can be done about it.  Pre the PRISM Prison, it was hard to make this point, but now we know that we are in the PRISM Prison, I think we should start to do something about it.  The question is what?  The short answer is that we need to start to make the move away from trusting our data to large multinational corporations.  The long answer is that people like me need to step up and show everyone how.

And so that is what I am going to do – stay tuned.  And definitely send me a note if you have thoughts, ideas, or concerns and I will share with you what I know.  Send the note to horneps@gmail.com.  Yes that is at google, but I do that on purpose just like I post my blog to facebook.   That’s part of the plan – I have to be there to get people out of there.

Let’s think about how we are going to get out of the PRISM Prison.

And please, if you are interested in this idea, send this note on.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment